Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

" wrote in news:845081e2-95d9-4a7e-
:

On May 20, 3:50*pm, Helen Waite
wrote:

Are you really that stupid? *Why does the weather conditions matter. Sho
w
us from the FARs what weather conditions are required for an IPC.

Remember you are talking to a NON PILOT who says sensory feelings are
not a part of IFR flying.

That's should wrap this thread up in a nutshell. :-)


I'm well aware that Anthony is a non-pilot simmer who thinks that MSFS has
made him god's gift to the real world of aviation. He has to be exposed
each and every time he opens his mouth, especially in a student forum.

Isn't it interesting that while he is always asking other's for cites, he
doesn't supply any to back his twisted conclusions. As another poster very
accurately said, IMC stands for "Ignoramus Mxsmanic Claims" whenever
Anthony posts.

"Steve Foley" wrote in
:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
Steve Foley writes:

You also tried to 'fly' from KTEX to KASE, slammed into a mountain ,
and lived.

That was VFR.

Video Flicker Rate?




Maybe Vidiot Fjukktard Reality?

gatt wrote in
:

Helen Waite wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in

Not necessary. I completed an Instrument Proficiency Check three
weeks ago. I wasn't even due for it, just did it anyway. Six
different approaches, radar vectoring, unusual attitude recovery,
etc.
What were the weather conditions?


It was an IPC. Anybody who has done an IPC in flight knows they're
typically done under the hood.

Are you really that stupid? Why does the weather conditions matter.
Show us from the FARs what weather conditions are required for an
IPC.

Well, Ash might call me an arrogant ass for pointing this out, but
when I did my instrument checkride, it included getting stuck in a
20-minute hold in solid IMC. Not only did I live, I passed the
checkride.

I've shot plenty of approaches in zero visibility, in a Frasca Tru
Flight--a REAL flight simulator--so I've pretty much got it covered no
matter how you look at it. I've certainly got nothing to prove to
some video-game addict, regardless of what he claims he read
somewhere.

-c


I know that YOU know what real IFR flight is. Anthony doesn't. His
question to you was yet another example of what another poster aptly
referred to as IMC = Ignoramus Mxsmanic Claims.

Since he posts his drivel to a student news group and has NEVER flown a
real airplane, even the slightest error on his part should be pounced upon
and verified so students who are unaware of his total and complete lack of
qualifications will not ever listen to anything he says.

Benjamin Dover wrote:
That was VFR.

Video Flicker Rate?




Maybe Vidiot Fjukktard Reality?


Virtual ****ing Reality.

Most likely another thing he only simulates, Mortimer. Stimulating
simulation? Does MS have such a sim?



On May 20, 7:04 pm, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
wrote:
Benjamin Dover wrote:
That was VFR.

Video Flicker Rate?

Maybe Vidiot Fjukktard Reality?

Virtual ****ing Reality.

On May 21, 12:56*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

you need to learn about somatogravic thresholds, the effect of alcohol
on the viscosity of the fluids of the inner ear

How much alcohol are we talking about here? Dies the viscosity of the
endolymph actually change?

Cheers

On Tue, 20 May 2008 13:36:51 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Stealth Pilot wrote in
:

On Mon, 19 May 2008 04:29:11 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

A Lieberman writes:



The danger in instrument flight is that all sorts of things are felt,
but none of them is reliable. It is called instrument flight because
the pilot ignores things felt and flies exclusively by the
instruments.



The feeling in your rear end is no more reliable than the feeling from
your inner ear.

It sounds like your Friday incident has given you a false sense of
security.

during the history of scientific endeavour there have been many
individuals who have arrived at the correct answers for the wrong
reasons.

anthony you are perpetually one of those people.

while you may occasionally say the correct things a careful read of
your posts has always revealed the fact that you have inherently an
incompetent understanding of what you write about.

Stealth Pilot



Difference is, he doesn;t arrive at the answer, he starts there. Then he
works his way back the Anthony land until he begins with a premise that
is straight out of alice in wonderland.

Bertie

absolutely true bertie.
so you, I and others like us take on the duty of correcting his posts,
not ever in the hope of educating him but to warn others learning into
aviation that he is wrong.
personally I think we'd all be better off if we flew to paris and shot
the *******.
Stealth Pilot

On Tue, 20 May 2008 09:21:48 -0700 (PDT), A Lieberman
wrote:

On May 20, 9:55*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

BOTH might be telling you something so
they should not be ignored.

Exactly my point. Especially the absense of an expected sensation
(see further down).

But BOTH are physical sensations and as such
are NEVER used as a source to make a control change while IFR.

Agree, and I never said to make a control change. I use it to VERIFY
an existing condition. If I am climbing, AI shows normal pitch up and
I feel positive G's life is good. If I add power to capture the glide
slope to to drive it level to capture it, needles move in the
directioin expected and I feel it in the seat of my pants, life is
good. The feeling is CONFIRMING the instrument trends, life is good.

If you feel a physical sensation while on instruments, it is indeed a
cue, but NOT an actionable cue. ALL sensations are simply there. You
NEVER act in ANY way on what ANY sensation is giving you in the way of a
cue.

And this is where I may digress a little, operative word is a little.
It's actionable in the sense of expanding your scan in determining why
something is not right. I am not saying make a control change based
on a sensation, but I am saying start looking elsewhere on your panel
to resolve the discrepancy between what you feel and what you see.

Using my example, pitch up AI, and not feeling G's made me look
elsewhere for discrepancies. If I would have followed the AI, first
instinct would have been push the nose over and rectify the AI WITHOUT
considering other instruments. It was the discrepancy of not feeling
the G's and showing a pitch up that made me ACT to further my scan to
the VSI and airspeed QUICKER then my normal scan process would have
taken. I made NO changes in my airplane configuration until I
furthered my scan to my secondary gauges

If the sensation is expected by something you have done control
wise that's fine.

THIS IS EXACTLY what I am saying. Based on control INPUTS, I should
have a corresponding feeling in the seat of my pants.

If it isn't, don't act on it. Your scan is in progress
at all times.

THIS IS EXACTLY what I am saying. If there is a discrepancy, need to
search further for what is going on, not act on sense.

You control the aircraft based on instrument cues ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agree, and what you feel should be what the instrument reads. If
climbing, feel some G's. The feeling CONFIRMS what the instruments
read, not the other way around. This is what I am trying to drive
home.

God.I hope this clears this up!

Hopefully what I say above clears it up. I really think we are on the
same page, just a matter of how I am wording it :-)

no. there is a fundamental principle long written in the deaths of
people who think the way you do which you are getting wrong.

NEVER rely on your senses. they have all sorts of biological
limitations which the instruments do not have. I encourage you to
research this because it is fascinating as subject in itself. hunt out
some good 'human factors' books.

let me develop one mental picture that should show you the folly of
your approach. you seem to assume IFR flight in stratus conditions,
benign grey opaque almost still air.
just picture yourself in ifr conditions in a breeze over the rounded
hills north east of Adelaide in South Australia. you pull up and
expect the seat of the pants response. you have been flying through a
section of air rising over the hills (you can see the influence
3,500ft above them) you fly over the crest of the hill and enter the
descending air on the other side at about the time of the pull up.

no seat of the pants reaction there. so you go into a totally spurious
response. what would you do? pull up even harder to get the response?

if that doesnt convince you picture youself flying through a
developing thunder storm (in IFR you cant see them ahead) now consider
a pull up in a downdraft.

the accident report reads... it is likely that the aircraft stalled
and entered a spin in ifr conditions. sections of the wreckage were
strewn down the slope of a nearby hill.

Dudley is bang on the money! for heavens sake learn!!!!!!!

Stealth Pilot

On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:00:25 -0700 (PDT), More_Flaps
wrote:

On May 21, 12:56*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

you need to learn about somatogravic thresholds, the effect of alcohol
on the viscosity of the fluids of the inner ear

How much alcohol are we talking about here? Dies the viscosity of the
endolymph actually change?

Cheers

yes. you can be quite sober and still have the viscosity reduction
active in your ears some 48 hours or more later.
never, never, never drink alcohol in the week before flying IFR.

do some serious human factors reading. the subject is fascinating.
our human sensations have some amazing limitations.

if you need a good introductory text on human physiology to get some
underlying understanding I can recommend 'Human Anatomy and
Physiology' by Elaine N Marieb. It is published by Pearson Benjamin
Cummings in san francisco. excellent!

Stealth pilot

On Tue, 20 May 2008 22:42:44 +0200 (CEST), Benjamin Dover
wrote:



You really don't know **** from shinola. You lack the real world
experience to differentiate **** from shinola. All you do is regurgite
whatever character string you find that you half-wittedly think matches
what's being discussed.

Ben dover the technical precision of your comment is encouraging.
Stealth Pilot